Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always talking about micro-evolution?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 257 (84682)
02-09-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Skeptick
02-06-2004 12:57 AM


quote:
Certainly. I believe someone else countered me as to whether the wolf really evolved from the coyote or not, but that wasn't my point. Dogs, coyotes, wolves. All are in the same genus "canis", and it only seemed logigal to me that wolves, since they're bigger and better, would have been the natural selection over a dog or a coyote. If that was a mistake, ok then, my mistake.
"Bigger" isn't always "better". It takes more resources to maintain a larger organism, for example.
Why did you consider wolves "better" than dogs or coyotes, anyway? Better in what context?
"Better" in an evolutionary context means that it survives as a species more successfully than it's competitors. By this definition, dogs, since they became connected to humans and were considered useful and pleasurable companions, rode our shirtails to evolutionary dominance. By contrast, wolves became competitors with humans for territory, so they were driven, by humans, to the brink of extinction.
Is this what you meant?
quote:
As far as species go, dogs and wolves are interfertile, which by definition of the term "species", makes dogs and wolves the same species.
No, dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The split between their subspecies is very recent and their DNA is almost identical.
quote:
But let's say that's wrong too, because none of that was my point.
Yep, you're wrong.
quote:
And if you mean my reference to a frog turning into an elephant, yes, I believe that's macro evolution just as you'll find evolutionists admitting to on several websites and publications.
Well, a frog and an elephant share a common ancestor, and that's evolution.
Can you explain, considering the very good evidence we have of the amphibian-to-reptile-to-mammal evolutionary pathway, the evidence you have that puts this into question?
quote:
If you meant that part about life springing from rocks; isn't that where life started here on earth according to what kids are taught in our schools?
The origin of species (ToE) and the origin of life are two different theories.
I was never taught that life sprang from rocks, and I don't know of any science textbook which says this. Can you provide a quote or a link which supports your claim?
quote:
And before rocks, there was lots of hydrogen gas although I didn't think it necessary to list all the elements that existed after the big bang. Why would I not believe our teachers of the great theory of evolution, the study that avoids the question of the origin of life?
Do you fault the study of aerodynamics because it does not include an explanation of where air comes from?
The ToE does not address how life first began; it addresses life once it got here.
quote:
So, the supporting information that you're seeking can be found in the textbooks that you're already familiar with. Forum admin doesnt' allow a whole lot of cut and pasting, so I'll refrain from doing that here.
Oh, cutting and pasting relevant quotes from Biology textbooks to support your claims that the ToE addresses the origin of life would be allowed, I am sure of it. I'll take the responsibility for asking you to cut and paste.
You could always post a link, too.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Skeptick, posted 02-06-2004 12:57 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Skeptick, posted 02-09-2004 2:05 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 242 of 257 (86949)
02-17-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 8:49 PM


Re: Skepticism and Ignorance
quote:
Same goes vice versa; you will not believe in God's power to create in 6 days no matter what I show you.
Isn't the point of faith that you believe regardless of being "shown" anything or not?
quote:
The Israelites didn't believe Jesus despite all the miracles he did. If I could heal the sick, make the lame walk, raise the dead, you would try to explain the power of God away like Pharoah did; "...cheap magician's trick...", etc. So what's the point?
If you could raise the dead, I would likely believe. That would be incredible evidence of the supernatural, especially if you just poofed these people alive without any equipment.
The problem is, you can't do this.
quote:
Because evolution over billions of years is a lie of the devil.
Why do you degrade the bible to a mere science textbook?
Some christian Biologists believe that God's work is written in the story of life on Earth.
Why would god make the earth look old if it wasn't? Why would god make genetic trees and mophological trees so amazingly similar if creatures weren't related to each other?
quote:
Evidence does not exist, only lots of hot air that keeps changing as scientists continue surmising.
So far, you refuse to address any specifics. You only repeat your claims as if doing this will make then true. Now answer my two questions above.
quote:
But I can quote what I want, you simply won't let God be sovereign. So, again, what's the point?
What we want you to do is stop repeating your wild claims and support your claims with evidence.
You say "X can't be true".
We ask "Why not, the evidence shows this, and this, and this?"
You say, "X is a lie of the Devil!"
So you see how ignorant you are looking?
It seems pretty clear to me that I would have to stop using my intellect to be the kind of Christian you are.
Sorry, not interested in shutting down the brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 8:49 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 243 of 257 (86953)
02-17-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 8:59 PM


Re: Rebellion against God
quote:
Those who come here thinking there is no God,
What does atheism have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote:
and that life came from non-life,
What does Abiogenesis have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
quote:
As far as someone like me, we've already considered the prospect that God perhaps may have used evolution to create, simply because scientists brought the question up. However, examination of the facts by countless experts show a different story than the one we're taught by would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God.
Please list the names of, let's say, 10 of these "countless experts", including their area of training.
Please also indicate who are the "would-be scientists who refuse to believe in God." Please list names.
quote:
There are numerous people (I can name names, and so can you) who left your camp after they got an inside view of evolution.
Yes, please name names.
quote:
But, of course, you discredit them.
Do they do good science? If not, they deserve to be discredited.
quote:
There are also those who broke away from my camp to join yours, but their motivation was far different; rebellion against God.
Nothing other than rebellion against God.
Why are you continuing to degrade the Bible by reducing it to a mere science textbook?
Also, how dare you presume to decide for every Christian on the planet that if they do not follow your particular beliefs and your particular interpretation of certain parts of the bible, that they are "rebelling against God"?
Apparently, you must think that you are the only one in the world qualified to judge if someone is a "true Christian" or not.
How grotesquely arrogant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 8:59 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 244 of 257 (86963)
02-17-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Skeptick
02-16-2004 11:48 PM


Re: I believe in evolution
quote:
They expect you to "substantiate" almost every thing you say, then when you do, they blast the source as being an evolutionary heretic.
Please indicate where anyone has ever called someone an "evolutionary heretic."
If we criticize a source it is probably because it is not a peer-reviewed, scientific source.
Professional scientists use professional, peer reviewed journals to publish their work. Quotes from popular press books or on-line publications are not scientifically-valid unless they are properly referencing peer-reviewed work. That is because one can say anything one wants to in a popular press book regardless of validity.
quote:
(most of the creationist experts are EX-evolutionists who simply found no choice but admit that the theory of evolution has no provable mechanism for changing a microbe into a microbiologist.
Actually, most Creationists were never trained experts in scientific fields which deal with Evolution, and a surprising number are not trained in the sciences at all.
Almost all are Creationists for religious reasons; almost to a person, they are ALL Christian fundamentalists.
In contrast, Biologists, as all scientists are, a very diverse group WRT religious beliefs.
That Creationists are very nearly all Fundamentalist Christian, and Biologists are quite diverse in their religious views, is extremely telling, don't you think, Skeptic?
quote:
House cats to alley cats and little mice to big mice, yes. But no mechanism for macro-evolution).
Actually, the mechanism for "macroevolution" is exactly the same mechanism for microevolution according to Biologists.
Can you please explain, in detail what barrier exists that would prevent many, many small changes over time from accumulating to result in large phenotypic differences between "parent" and "daughter" species?
quote:
But, like the pharisees, they either won't substantiate anything (just lots of hot air and fallacy-laden arguments)
Please list and counter all falaccies made in response to evidence you have presented.
quote:
but when they do, their sources of information are always infallible and absolutely irrefutable
Not true.
Remember, just because you are unable to refute evidence does not make it "irrefutable".
quote:
(so be prepared for ad hominem attacks if you dare point out flaws in their arguments!)
Please list these flaws, and please list the ad hominem attacks in response to your refutations. Or, you can link to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 11:48 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 257 (87396)
02-18-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by miss smartie pants yes um
02-17-2004 11:36 PM


quote:
Okay Mr. Toad. When I said everyone comes in with a biast opinion, I meant it. We are all leaning toward one or the other. We all want to show that what we are saying is true.
At the risk of drawing off-topic ire from Admin, I will reply once to this. we can begin a new topic on bias if you wish to continue.
I would agree that everyone comes here with some bias. However, there are different kinds of bias, and all bias is not a hinderance or a "bad" thing.
The kind of bias that many of the evolutionists here have is bias in favor of the evidence. We go where the evidendce leads, so we are biased towards trusting in the evidence to show us, as clearly as possible, the nature of the Universe.
The kind of bias many religious people/Creationists have is the kind that makes them, for example, consider acceptable any evidence that supports what their religious beliefs are before they ever look at any evidence, and unacceptable any evidence that contradicts what they have already decided ahead of timemust be true according to their religion.
Do you see how the evidence found in nature leads scientific inquiry, and that Creationists are simply picking and choosing evidence in order to make their ideas look credibly scientific, and then ignore everything else? These are opposites.
Certainly, I do not mean to say that all science-mided people are free of "bad bias", but I also think that this kind of "bad bias" is part and parcel of being a Creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by miss smartie pants yes um, posted 02-17-2004 11:36 PM miss smartie pants yes um has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by miss smartie pants yes um, posted 02-18-2004 10:59 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 257 (87564)
02-19-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by miss smartie pants yes um
02-18-2004 10:59 PM


quote:
This is my last post on here. I can't believe how many of you are so freaking arrogant that you think you are so right and we are so wrong.
If you think I'm wrong, then show me how I'm wrong.
I have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future, so I welcome correction.
What I don't welcome is people who cannot or will not support their claims who then become indignant.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a debate board. Debate occurs when people talk about why they think an opposing viewpoint is incorrect.
It seems that you don't like to debate, or find it upsetting, so it's probably good that you take a break to cool down.
Hopefully, you will eventually realize that debate and disagreement is natural and healthy when discussing science and you will not become so threatened in the face of discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by miss smartie pants yes um, posted 02-18-2004 10:59 PM miss smartie pants yes um has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024